I believe that this is the era of the plastic gun.. It seems like every where you look, even in e-mail flyers there are ads for polymer frame guns.

This all started in 1981 when Gaston Glock introduced the Glock 17. There is a pretty interesting story about the initial design of that gun and Glock himself.

I recall when the Glock hit the gun magazines, and was pretty sure it was going to be a novelty item, soon forgotten. If I had stock in Glock..

From a pretty modest beginning to several million units in circulation, Glock is one of names on the "sort list" with folks like Browning and Kalashnikov.

The Glock is simple, light has few parts, known for reliability and high capacity, it wasn't long until police departments started showing an interest.

These days most uniformed police officers have a Glock in their holster.

"Nothing succeeds like success", once the other gun manufacturers saw how successful the Glock was, they wanted some of that market share.

Some of the early attempts at inroads to the Glock market were pretty dismal. Trying to duplicate anything without infringing on some ones patents, can be a little daunting.

Fast forward to today, almost every gun maker from all over the world has a polymer frame semi-auto. Glock still sells the majority of those types of firearms, however today there are better choices.

Glock has plugged along with their original design, while the rest of the market has been evolving. Glocks fall into the category of kit guns, when you buy one you immediately start adding new parts, the plastic sights are high on the replacement list, then for reloaders who shoot cast bullets, a new barrel, some folks do not care for the plastic guide rod, so that is another expense. Glock triggers are less than ideal, so a trigger kit goes on the list. Pretty soon your $500.00 base price Glock has cost you an additional $300.00. Just to get you to a point comparable with a $3-400.00 S&W or Ruger.

There are many imported guns out there that are in the sub $300.00 range, but some folks politics make them less desirable.

The latest innovation in the polymer frame guns is the chassis. All of the actual fire control parts, structural frame rails are in a single removable unit, that is easily cleaned or repaired, as necessary.

A flaw with the Glock and other firearms of that pattern is the molded in frame rails, if one breaks which they do, then the gun is out of service and the entire frame needs to be replaced.

Sig has a chassis gun, which is now the issue for the Army, Ruger has two chassis guns, the Remington RP series are chassis designs. The S&W M&P is not, but all of the metal parts are easily replaceable.

Ironically the Steyr, that was such a dismal failure back in the early days of the "super nines", now has a viable competitor, the M9 series, standard rifling, good metal sights, chassis, lower price, the "other Austrian", should give Glock a real run for their money..

I was one of the proponents of switching our police department to Glocks in the 1990's.

Our issue sidearm at that time was a stainless steel 45 ACP Colt Government model.

I loved that! And we were free to carry a personally owned 45 1911 instead if we preferred. However, some folks had real trouble handling the 45 1911.

AND worse - Colt's quality control on those things was AWFUL back then. Sometimes we'd open up a new pistol, and it wouldn't even shoot. A trip to the gunsmith was almost a requirement in those days. My choice was to buy a Kimber as soon as they were introduced in 1997, and 20+ years later, with 85,000 rounds through it, that gun is still doing well.

HOWEVER - we needed something utilitarian. Simple. Sturdy. Easy to maintain. A lot of cops aren't "gun guys" the pistol is just a tool.

Enter the Glock.

Inexpensive. Durable. Accurate enough. Reliable as all get out.

Pull it out of the box, cram the ample magazine full, and go shoot. Almost all of them functioned flawlessly and shot well. We issued 45 and 40 cal Glocks. The guys 'n gals loved 'em!

Maintenance was simple for the officer, and for me. I was the department armorer, and ALMOST never had a problem with the Glocks.

Honestly, at the time, they proved to be an excellent choice! No wonder that Smith & Wesson, who had owned the American police market with their revolvers for decades, lost out to the new-fangled Austrian plastic pistol.

BTW - found that most of the guys who spent money on weird aftermarket parts for their Glocks, wasted their money. The guns usually shot better, just the way they were built by Glock.

Bought my first Glock in the mid/late 80s, one of the first G20 10mms. Shot it a fair amount with cast handloads before I heard about “the concern”. Never had a problem. Lost interest for a while and revisited the G20 with a “grip reduction”, shot for a while then on to something else. Several years later, I started playing with the aftermarket stuff – new barrels (10 & 40) with conventional rifling and some fire control parts. Problems with both, so back to OEM parts to solve the problems. Added a second gun (Gen 3 I think) so that a light/laser could be added. Tried the same aftermarket parts with the same results. Put it back to OEM status. Son wanted to use it as his archery elk backup – was never comfortable with Glocks in general with round in the chamber, so we ultimately ended up with full size HK USPs shooting 45 Super for field carry.

Here’s a picture of my original G20 with the grip reduction.

Recently added a G22 40 S&W (Police trade in – price too good to pass up) with an aux 9mm bbl. Trigger was so good for a stock Glock that I also added an Advantage Arms 22 conversion. Fits me better than the larger G20, but don't have any particular use for it except fun at the range.

The main problem I have with the Glocks (other than ergonomics) is the trigger is unfriendly to my trigger finger.

The way I remember it, a few gun experts convinced police officers they "needed" high capacity 9mm auto pistols. But they soon discovered many officers weren't very competent with them. They then touted the Glock, which they claimed was idiot proof, and police officers everywhere decided they needed them. Until they found they weren't all that idiot proof, but by that time the market had changed focus to polymer frame autos. Cops like the light weight and high capacity magazine while manufacturers like the high profits.

Only 4% of my handguns are polymer and there's a reason for that, I don't see anything that great about them. In fact my polymers are my least favorite firearms.

The polymer frame was an excellent
development fit for a handgun, especially
a concealed carry handgun. It cuts down
on the weight and absorbs some of the
recoil. Internal cartridge metal insert
unit with all the important bits solves
most of the issues while keeping almost
all of the benefits of a poly body.

As to Glocks specifically, I don't
personally pack one for self defense
against two legged critters because the
grip angle is wrong for me and I will
shoot high in a simulated high stress
situation especially if firing from
retention where it is all instinct
shooting. I do, however, have little to
no issues with using one as a hunting
weapon and woods packing gun for self
defense against 4-legged trouble. I have
had real non-simulated 4-legged high
stress encounters and I keep my head and
my gun out in front and looking down the
sights a whole lot better (it also helps
that you can legally engage a 4-legged
threat at a much lower and early
threshold). So I had a G20 for many years
that was stock except for the barrel and
sights, served me very well. I have just
recently upgraded to a G40 with a red dot
reflex sight. I still need to find a good
iron sights with tritium solution that
will sit high enough up to just barely be
usable in the very bottom edge of the
screen of the reflex sight I am using.
Plus research aftermarket barrel options,
but I'm shooting it with the stock barrel
right now with +P+ WFN hard cast lead hand
loads with so far no issues with the not
fully supported factory chamber or factory
polygonal rifling, but probably don't want
to do it long term plus I would like just
a little more barrel length and a threaded
end for a comp block forward of the slide
(G40 is giving more muzzle jump then my
old G20).

As to other poly frame/body autos other
then the Glock. I really like my
Springfield XDS-45 3.3" that gun is so
nice and compact and is so accurate and
has surprisingly low recoil and muzzle
rise for being a big 45 in such a compact
package. Then my KelTec P32 is such a
sweet light weight little mouse gun, you
just forget it's there. There are others
I could mention like my I.O. Hellcat 380
(took some work to get running right but
is nice) and various 9mm poly guns I have
owned over the years.

As to carrying a Glock "hot" with a round
chambered. I don't mind that out in the
great outdoors with a good external
holster that has a big flap over closer
and not a strap where there is a risk of
the strap end getting into the trigger
during holstering and resulting in a
negligent discharge during holstering and
of course the always live no additional
safety in general just during general use.
But concealed carry with a round "hot" in
the chamber of a Glock "in town" ?!?!?!?!
No thanks, not for me unless it was the
only gun available and I had to make do,
even then unless it was a real rough
neighborhood I'd probably carry Israeli
style on an empty chamber and practice
racking the slide immediately upon draw.
The additional grip safety of the XDS
along with the trigger flipper up front is
the best balance and I carry it "hot"
concealed and is better then just a really
heavy long trigger like the little KelTec
uses. Both equally safe in my opinion but
gives a much better trigger for more
easily being able to shoot more
accurately.

Edited by turbo1889 on January 06 2019 at 5:27pm

__________________What part of, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED" don't you understand ?!?!?

To the most serious charge of "ARMING WOMEN" I plead guilty on multiple counts.

There are lots of incidents of folks shooting themselves,with their Glocks. There was one video of a fellow who put his compact Glock, into a appendix holster, walked around and then bent over to pick something up and the gun discharged.

There are those that go about how they would never have a personal defense handgun with a manual safety, which seems a bit foolish. Having additional safeties, is no guarantee that you will not accidentally discharge your fire arm, but it helps.

The key to carrying a Glock, or any of the other firearms of that pattern, safely is a good holster, that does not position the gun so it points at you.

As far as durability, Chuck Taylor claims to have a G17 with 300,000+ rounds through it, I might be a little skeptical about that.

There are a lot of cracked slides, and broken frame rails on those guns long before the 300K mark. However, in all probability the polymer frame guns may have better durability, than steel frame guns. The polymer frames tend to flex, polymer guide rods act as recoil buffers.

Back when I was in the service and some of my shooting buddies were on the base pistol team, they were changing out target 1911s quite regularly due to cracked frames.

Anyone with a 1911, with a high round count, would be well advised to have the frame magnafluxed to see if it is cracked.

Probably the safest carry guns are the DA/SA autos.

I have one striker fired gun that has no manual safety, it is SA only, meaning that the striker is fully cocked, unlike the Glock that is DA only, and some of the trigger motion goes into cocking the striker, but my gun has a decocker, that makes it safe (safer) to carry with a round in the chamber, but before you can fire the gun the slide needs to be pulled back 1/2" to re engage the striker.

Back when the 1911 Colt was introduced, it was meant to be carried with the hammer cocked, the thumb safety disengaged, solely relying on the grip safety.

Safety with firearms has nothing to do with the firearm itself, it is incumbent on the operator.

I bought my first GLock in... Oh wait, I don't own a Glock, and I may be one of the few who doesn't and never has. I won't go so far as to say I never will, but I don't have any real love for them.

I do own a couple of polymer frame 9s, and they are both Smiths. One is a full size M&P of first generation manufacture. I like almost all of it, and my biggest complaint is the trigger. It's a plastic affair and I have these odd nightmares of breaking it in a moment of panic firing - you know, the kind of time you really want your weapon to function properly. The second one is a most excellent Shied. It just seems to work really well and is super easy for me to carry.

As far as safety is concerned, I've never had an issue in any regard, though I do have a friend who suffered form a discharge of his baby Glock when it fell onto the floor (I presume landing on the back of the slide). I only half believed him until he showed me the hole in the closet wall. I suspect that this was a result of an aftermarket trigger package. Personally, and I am not an expert, I feel that most striker-fired safety concerns could be alleviated by using a sturdy holster which entirely covers the holster and does not flex so much that a pen or keys could manipulate the trigger from outside.

Back to the original point of this being the age of polymer frames - well, Ruger has polymer revolvers, there are polymer AR lowers, and even a polymer framed 1911 now. So, yes, I think it just might be.

There's no doubt it's the era of polymer guns. That doesn't mean they are better than steel, or any other material, it just means the market has been manipulated in that direction. It also appears to be the end of an era of fine quality firearms as the whole market has become directed at making firearms cheaper and cheaper to get more profits for the manufacturers. I used to spend a lot of time in gun stores, drooling all over the place. Now it's sort of sickening to look at what you have to choose from. Even the used gun counters are filled with newer, cheaper quality firearms as owners of the older ones are not as willing to let them go in trades for the new offerings.

I remember standing in a gun store about 25 years ago watching shooters on their indoor range. There were two teenagers watching also. One shooter was shooting a revolver and one of the teens said that was a "cowboy gun from back in the day". It was a Colt Python. This is the mindset they are growing up with.

I thought about buying a steel frame replacement for my Glock, but decided it wasn't just the plastic I didn't like about it. I don't buy guns to dress them up, and feel if they need a bunch of garbage added on to make them better, they aren't worth buying in the first place. The last plastic gun I bought was an H&K USP and haven't looked at a polymer frame since.

I bought a Glock 17, and it shot really well for me. I
got a Glock 30, iirc, and it wasn't worth having. So
fool that I am I got a Glock 19. Then I had my
chemotherapy and now can barely feel anything, and all
my shots went low and left. I managed to acquire a
Ruger LC9s Pro that shoots like a dream, light trigger
and eats anything that I feed it. Traded in my 19 for a
CZ 75 SP01. It's a bit picky about it's diet.

I will admit that the Glocks were the most dependable
pistols that I've had, although the Ruger hasn't given
me any problems either.
Even though the Ruger is polymer, it is my every day
carry gun. The CZ is all steel, and it shoots well but
ain't a good concealment weapon.Not to mention a
reasonably priced holster is impossible to find.

I too resisted the plastic for a long time but got into some police trade ins and they were fine and lig+ht to carry. Lately I got a Sig Souer 9mm and it is the most accurate gun I have ever had. Easy to site and shoot. I still shoot all my steel gun also but plastic is OK with me now.

__________________Wall Street reports today on brisk trading 380 brass finished higher for the last 14 straight months against the euro, dollar and yen.

I too resisted the polymer fad, for a long time, but finally broke down and bought a Ruger 9E, the plain version of the SR series. They have since discontinued the 9E for their Security 9, A hammer fired gun with a full chassis frame.

There are some of the polymer autos that will shoot every bit as accurately as any revolver. One that comes to mind is the Walther PPQ, it has one of the, if not the best trigger, it is chambered in 9mm and .45ACP.

The real draw of the polymer guns is convenience, ease of carry, that and cost. Are they ugly, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder..

Accurate, absolutely.
Reliable, this actually varies, just like it does with any other firearm.
Idiot proof, not hardly
Ugly, yes, but I don't buy or carry guns because they look good.
Ergonomic, not at all and there is nothing you can really do about it. And this applies to many high capacity autos. But everyone knows you need a high cap mag.

The design isn't perfect as they will fire out of battery and this isn't good even with a fully supported barrel. It is even worse when placed in the hands of shooters who don't think they need to clean their firearms, like most cops. And when they do fire out of battery the frame is scrap, where a metal frame would take it without damage.

Most of the accessories aren't a result of the guns design, it's a result of the poor skills of the shooters. The junk they add on are supposed to help them shoot better, and some of it may, on a range. Most of the accessories I see on the market, and this goes for every firearm, are more of a detriment than an asset.

The main draw for plastic guns is the lighter weight. I don't care about the weight as much as I don't care about the looks. I don't carry guns just to carry guns, it's because I might actually have to shoot it.

It's like Lee reloading equipment, their stuff is cheaply made and in many instances poorly designed, but will load ammo that is just as reliable as any other brand. I prefer the other brands, based on my experience. And I prefer non-polymer guns for the same reason. I have several plastic guns and if I ever feel they would be more useful than any other gun I wouldn't have a problem using them, but that hasn't happened yet.

Polymers have their place as any other thing. For me, the appeal was for a 9 with more than 10 in the mag. It was my primary carry gun for quite a while, then I went back to the 1911. I find that design to be more comfortable in many cases due to the thickness (thinness?). But that's really a question of design and not material construction. As I think I mentioned above, there is now a 1911 with a poly frame - EAA, if I am not mistaken.

To be clear, I am not really a huge fan of poly frame, but if it encourages engineers to develop better firearms and better materials to make them from, I am happy.

I'm all for engineers designing better weapons and have no problem with better materials, as long as they are "better" and not "cheaper to build to get a higher profit". That's why there are very few firearms I would buy new anymore.

Actually polymer MAY OR MAY NOT be
"cheaper for better profit margin". With
polymer components the molds and machines
to form the polymer parts are extremely
expensive so it is only cheaper to use
polymer if you make a freaking gazillion
of the parts in question. If you don't
make enough it is actually MORE expensive.
This has really hurt some manufacturers
who have had a product that was a lemon or
a market flop (first can be mainly their
own fault) and the sales never take off
and going polymer ends up being a double
edged sword and they end up loosing their
shirts because the production volume never
gets high enough to reach the necessary
economy of scale.

So when you go poly you had better be sure
you can sell enough of them or it will
sink you.

__________________What part of, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED" don't you understand ?!?!?

To the most serious charge of "ARMING WOMEN" I plead guilty on multiple counts.

True Turbo, machinery cost must always be considered when looking at profit. I'm not so sure about the "gazillion" parts bit though.

However there are others things that need to be considered too, and one of the main ones is people. How many employees do you need, what hourly rate do they get paid and what, if any benefits do they get.

A skilled machinist would get paid more than a general laborer, which would mean more for overtime pay too and with a nice paying job they may stay until they retire.

When S&W was trying to explain why they went to Metal Injection Molding for their parts, they claimed that MIM was much more expensive. The slurry they used for the molding was ten more times more expensive than the steel stock they used to use and they had to pay someone experienced to make the molds. They also said the MIM parts were "almost" as strong as the machined parts.

What they didn't tell you was that there was very little waste of the slurry compared to how much of the bar stock ended up on the shop floor and how much it cost to pay someone to design the molds and operate them compared to the machinists that made the parts from stock and the experienced personnel that hand fitted them that were no longer needed.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou can vote in polls in this forum